The European Union Times - Breaking News, Latest News » Conservatism

Italy inspired by France to expel citizens from other EU states by September

EU Times — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:42:48 +0000

A beggar on the streets of Venice. The Italian remarks come hot on the heels of Roma expulsions in France

Italy has said it intends to expel citizens from other EU states if they are not able to support themselves, in a move apparently inspired by France’s current crackdown on Roma.

Interior Minister Roberto Maroni told daily newspaper Corriere della Sera on Saturday (21 August) that French president Nicolas Sarkozy – whose recent actions include closing down Roma camps and deporting around 200 Roma to date – is “right.”

The minister, from the anti-immigrant Northern League Party, said that “if anything, it’s time to go a step further” and referred to the mandatory expulsion of EU citizens who do not meet certain criteria.

“Yes, expulsions just like those for illegal immigrants, not assisted or voluntary repatriations. Of course only for those who violate rules on requirements for living in another member state: a minimum level of income, adequate housing and not being a burden on the social welfare system of the country hosting them.”

“Many Roma are EU citizens but do not respect any of these requirements,” he said. But added, when asked if this would be discriminatory, that the policy should apply to all EU citizens and not just Roma.

“If anything, the problem is something else: unlike in France, many Roma and Sinti here have Italian citizenship. They have the right to remain here. Nothing can be done.”

Mr Maroni admitted that previous attempt by Rome to go in this direction were shot down by the European Commission but said he intends to re-raise the issue of automatic expulsions at a meeting of EU interior ministers in Paris on 6 September.

In 2008, the commission threatened Italy with legal action if it went ahead with a decree allowing the expulsion of other EU citizens facing two years of jail. It gave its blessing to a controversial proposal by Italy to fingerprint Roma, however.

Some in Italy have suggested there is a discrepancy between the relatively strong reaction by Brussels to Italy two years ago compared with its muted response to Mr Sarkozy’s policy towards the Roma community.

According to Mr Maroni this is due to an old “prejudice” whereby a policy carried out by a minister from the Northern League, a junior coalition partner in Rome’s right-wing government, is assumed to “violate human rights.”

France

Mr Sarkozy’s government deported around 10,000 Roma to Romania and Bulgaria last year but the current raids against against a planned total of 300 Roma camps come after the French president for the first time expressly linked immigration and crime.

The European Commission, for its part, has said it is monitoring the situation in France noting that any deportation decisions must be proportionate and carried out on a case-by-case basis, with human rights watchdogs already questioning whether these criteria are being fulfilled.

Meanwhile, critics of Mr Sarkozy’s policy have suggested that the Roma will simply return as soon as they are able.

They also suggest that Paris is contributing to a vicious circle due to its decision to maintain until 2014 rules restricting access to the labour market to nationals from Bulgaria and Romania – where the majority of Roma come from – and with it a means of supporting themselves.

Source

Tougher Than Arizona Immigration Bill Introduced in Utah

EU Times — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:42:33 +0000

Utah State Representative Stephen Sandstrom has introduced an immigration bill which in some ways may be tougher than Arizona’s embroiled S.B. 1070, yet omits the “onerous” and “punitive” aspects of the bill.

Rep. Sandstrom said he might be willing to bend on some minor points of the bill to improve its chance of passage, but will not compromise on allowing police to question individuals on their immigration status, as this is the “key to the bill.”

Rep. Sandstrom is expecting opposition, but says there are “dozens upon dozens” of legislators who will support the bill, and he believes it will ultimately pass.

Ron Paul to run for President of USA in 2012

EU Times — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:38:16 +0000

Washington, United States of America – According to the Ron Paul forums on his website he ( Ron Paul ) will run for the president of the United States in 2012. The message said “Ron Paul WILL BE running in 2012 barring unforseen circumstances”.

Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 but his popularity was not there yet, after Obama people realised that Ron Paul was the “real change” they were hoping for but unfortunately by then had already voted for Barack Obama.

If Ron Paul would run for president he already has the online support Barack Obama had if not more.

Gillard declares she wants Australia to become a republic when Queen dies

EU Times — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:27:15 +0000

TONY Abbott believes it is “far from certain” Australia will become a republic in his lifetime, after Labor signalled a new push on the issue.

Julia Gillard today declared she wants Australia to become a republic when the Queen dies, and plans to lead a national debate on the form the republic would take.

The Prime Minister said today that despite being a republican, she understood that Australians had a “deep affection” for the British monarch, who is 84.

“What I would like to see as prime minister is that we can work our way through to an agreement for the model of a republic,” Ms Gillard said while campaigning in the north Queensland city of Townsville, ahead of Saturday’s election.

“But I would think the appropriate time for this nation to move to being a republic is when we see the monarch change.”

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Her comments put her absolutely at odds with Mr Abbott, a staunch monarchist who was at the centre of the anti-republican cause in the 1999 referendum, which rejected the notion of change.

Campaigning with Wayne Swan in the crucial marginal seat of Herbert, Ms Gillard said she wished the Queen a long and happy life.

“Having watched her mother I think there’s every chance that she will live a long and happy life,” she said.

Mr Abbott said he saw no reason to change the existing constitutional arrangements.

“I think the first person who wanted Australia to become a republic was John Dunmore Lang back in the 1850s,” Mr Abbott told the National Press Club in Canberra.

“This republican cause has been with us for a long time but the Australian people have demonstrated themselves to be remarkably attached to institutions that work.

“I think that our existing constitutional arrangements have worked well in the past. I see no reason whatsoever why they can’t continue to work well in the future.

“So while there may very well be further episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain that, at least in our lifetimes, that there’s likely to be any significant change.”

Source

Iceland: EU Membership? No Thank You!

EU Times — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:36:41 +0000

European politicians and journalists visiting Iceland in recent months have been quite astonished to experience first hand how little interest Icelandic MPs and Icelanders in general have in joining the European Union. So astonished in fact that Icelandic lawmakers have repeatedly been asked if the EU application delivered by the Icelandic government in 2009 is really serious. Well, quite frankly it isn’t. It is a door bell prank. No one really is there when the bell rings and the door is opened.

There is a reason why Iceland has never before applied to join the EU. There has always been a strong opposition to membership in the country. The necessary support among the Icelandic people has in fact never been there and the present government was and is well aware of that. Still the EU was deliberately told differently. And now the EU is waking up to a bad dream and realising that Icelanders quite simply don’t want to join the EU and never have. That the EU application is in fact a lame duck.

Since last summer repeated opinion polls have shown more people against joining the EU than ever before. According to the latest one 60 percent of Icelanders want the EU application scrapped with only 26 percent wanting to carry on with it. Another recent poll showed that 70 percent would reject joining the EU in a referendum and yet another one that 58 percent don’t trust the Icelandic government to defend Iceland’s interests in talks with the EU. Finally the business community opposes membership.

There are a number of reasons why Icelanders don’t wish to join the EU. First of all it is the self-determination, the independence. Icelanders believe and for a very good reason that by joining the EU their independence would be no more. As a token of this, people in Iceland felt insulted when the European Council decided on 17 June to recommend accession talks with Iceland. On that date Icelanders celebrate that Iceland became an independent republic a little more than 60 years ago.

Another important issue is fishing rights. Icelanders will never be willing to accept that any authority over Icelandic waters will be transferred to the EU. That means that the Lisbon Treaty could never have any authority over Icelandic fishing grounds whatsoever. Agriculture is also very important to Icelanders when it comes to EU relations as polls have shown. The same goes for the right to conclude agreements with other countries on issues like free trade and shared fish stocks.

The Icelandic foreign minister has been active in feeding leading people in the EU with wrong information about the true situation in Iceland. He gave a speech in Brussels on the day accession talks between Iceland and the EU were formally launched in which he claimed that his government was united behind the EU application. On the same day the farm and fisheries minister told Icelandic media that the accession process should be stopped.

There is only one political party in Iceland which supports EU membership and that is the foreign minister’s own governing Social Democratic Alliance. The EU application was merely the fruit of bargaining between the social democrats and their junior coalition partner, the eurosceptic Left Green Movement, when forming a government in the spring of 2009. Since then, opposition to the EU deal with the social democrats has been increasing fast within the ranks of the Left Greens.

In addition, this summer Iceland’s largest political party, the conservative Independence Party, which is the most likely to enter government if the current fragile one should break apart, accepted the idea that the EU application should be withdrawn completely and without delay. The policy was overwhelmingly accepted at the party’s national congress at the end of June and the party’s chairman has said publicly that making it come to pass will be a top priority should the party enter into government.

In short it should be quite obvious to anyone that Icelanders don’t want to join the EU. An application for EU membership should never have been made.

Source

Dutch minority government set to form with far-right backing

EU Times — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:39:40 +0000

A campaign poster for Geert Wilders' far-right Freedom Party

One of the most conservative Dutch governments ever was in the offing Sunday, with the conservative-liberal election winners of the VVD party agreeing on a minority coalition with the centre-right Christian Democrats and backed on a case-by-case basis by the far-right anti-Islam Freedom Party of Geert Wilders.

After almost two months of failed talks between all the major parties across the political spectrum, on the weekend it appeared that the three parties had coalesced on a formula that would not give the Freedom Party (PVV) a role in government or any cabinet positions, but would see the party back a minority coalition on confidence votes.

In return for the support of the Geert Wilders on the key demand of the VVD, the other two parties agreed to support additional immigration controls and a law-and-order agenda.

Crucially, the agreement will let Mr Wilders speak his mind as far as Islam and immigration are concerned. Mr Wilders, who is the only member of his political party, wants to see a ban on the construction of mosques, a tax imposed on people who wear the veil and the expulsion of millions of muslims from Europe.

Late Friday (30 July), the three parties put out a joint statement noting that they “differ in opinion on the nature and character of Islam. The dividing line lies in characterising Islam as a religion or an ideology”

However, they had swallowed their differences, with the PVV backing €18 billion in swingeing cuts to public spending in exchange for “tough agreements on immigration, integration, asylum, safety and better care for the elderly”. The VVD had wanted to make cuts of €20 billion.

The preliminary agreement by the parties will now be followed this week by formal talks on details of a coalition programme.

However, the centre and left of the house have cried foul over the development, saying that all the previous discussions over possible coalitions had been with the sole aim of cobbling together a majority government.

Ruud Lubbers, tasked by Queen Beatrix to sound out the parties on possible coalition combinations, had not attempted to find agreement on a minority government, they say.

“It’s his job to look into forming majority governments,” Job Cohen, the Labor leader said, according to public broadcaster NOS radio on Saturday. “Our country really needs a stable majority cabinet in this difficult economic situation.”

Femke Halsema, leader of the environmentalist Groenlinks party called the agreement “highly questionable democracy,” while Alexander Pechtold, the leader of D66, the ‘social liberal’ party, also complained that Mr Lubbers had only been charged with seeking a majority coalition.

Internally, the idea of being supported by the PVV horrifies a number of prominent members of both the VVD and the Christian Democrats.

Three Christian Democrat former ministers have come out publicly against such an arrangement.

And Frans Weisglas, a former VVD parliamentary house speaker told NOS that the Christian Democrats and VVD “have let themselves be swallowed whole by the Freedom Party, which is very regrettable.”

Source

France presses Romania on Roma question

EU Times — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:36:45 +0000

France is saying that the Roma question must be dealt with within a European framework, but starting with the countries of origin

France’s Europe minister, Pierre Lellouche, pressed Romania to tackle the question of “integration” of Roma communities on Monday.

He softened his tone from a week before by underscoring that all European states had a responsibility in which he laid the blame for France’s troubles with the community on Bucharest alone. However, he still stressed that this common responsibility “starts with the countries of origin” of Roma migrants.

“Everyone must mobilise. The responsibility for integration is first on the country of origin,” he said following a government meeting, reports AFP.

He added however that France and other countries “have a responsibility in terms of assistance and support,” and that Roma integration must be done “within the framework of European law.”

Mr Lellouche also said that he welcomed the creation of a Romanian government ministerial post dedicated to Roma integration, a “one-stop shop” with whom Paris could deal on the question of expelling gypsies and returning them to the eastern EU member state.

The establishment of such a post has long been demanded by the French government.

He also suggested that EU development funds delivered to Romania be used for dealing with the Roma question.

The EU’s “massive financial transfers … also apply to [Romania's] minorities,” he continued.

“You cannot have on the one hand financial transfers from west to east and minority transfers in which issues are not addressed by the east in the west,” he said.

Last week, Mr Lellouche publicly chastised Bucharest for its dealings with the Roma community.

He accused the Romanian authorities of not living up to promises regarding the matter and that France had reservations about the country’s scheduled accession to the European borderless zone, Schengen, in 2011.

The comments come after France announced it is to destroy 300 Roma encampments, half of the some 600 that exist in the country, round up their occupants and deport them to Romania.

Source

Interview with 2012 conservative presidential candidate Jon Greenspon

EU Times — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:31:20 +0000

Jon Greenspon

Hi, Mr. Greenspon. We’ve decided to interview you at your request. Please, introduce yourself to our readers first.
My name is Jon Greenspon, from Bozeman, Montana. I was born in Los Angeles, California in 1964. I am married, and have one daughter.

Are you a member of one of the main political parties?
I am a member of the Republican Party. Within the Republican Party, there are several factions, and I am classified as what would be considered a Jeffersonian/Reagan Republican. I am both fiscally and socially conservative.

So what are you aspiring to become? US president?
I am a candidate for United States President. I will be in the 2012 election from start to finish.

When and why have you chosen politics?
I’m one of the rare individuals out there that is looking out for the people, not the special interest groups, lobbying firms or party. I have been interested in politics ever since I first was eligible to vote, and during my service as a US Marine. Here in America, our two main political parties, in 2008, established their “platforms” for the coming years. My “platform” is simple enough – it was written in 1787, and starts with WE THE PEOPLE. My present situation, as a candidate for the Presidency, comes from watching as our political system has taken a dramatic turn, from supporting the rights of our citizens – as handed down in the Declaration of Independence – to tragic level of globalism and congressional malfeasance and creeping socialism, that our American veterans fought and bled to protect us from.

Why should people vote for you? What makes you any different from other candidates?
First and foremost, I am not a Politician. I’m a veteran, a father, and a concerned citizen. I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but I’m willing to listen to options and opinions from all citizens. I look at the Presidency as the highest level of service to the American people, and by right, should be the least partisan of political offices. I have not illusion that the President is the most powerful person in the United States, it the average voter that is the most powerful political person in this country.
When it comes to dealing with Congress, there are two simple rules:
1. Is it within Congress’ authority, in accordance with a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution?
2. Is it in the best interest of the people, as opposed to the best interest of the state? Similarly, I don’t see any logic in playing a “blame game” for everything that is wrong in the US on the prior Administration, because once the oath of office is taken, the mantle becomes the crown of thorns for the current Administration. And I bow to no one.

Do you think Obama was the best choice for America?
Honestly, No. Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a well-timed “march toward socialism” by the Democratic Party leadership, political corruption and intimidation via organizations such as the Black Panthers, The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and various American Labor organizations, as well as ineptness and infighting within other political organizations here in the United States. Needless to say, the best interests of the people of our country weren’t served, only the political aspirations of several hundred self-serving individuals.

Do you think Ron Paul could have been a better choice for your country?
I think Dr. Paul is an excellent representative for the American people. While I agree with a large portion of his political views, he is a polarizing figure with some parts of his beliefs.

What’s your opinion about massive immigration from non-European nations to America? Would you do something to stop that? And if so, what?
I am a firm believer in the value of immigration to America, both in terms of population and the accomplishments available from new citizens. I don’t intend to stop the arrival of those who would be willing to join this great experiment in freedom, although it must be through legal means. It is, however, well within the United States interests to limit the level of immigration on a yearly basis, in particular to those who are using visas to come into our country in deference to qualified Americans for employment.

Since we’re an European newspaper, we can’t help it to ask you, do you love Europe?
Europe is beautiful. I happen to have three places I enjoy visiting on a semi-regular basis. First is Dunoon, Scotland – a beautiful retreat location in Western Scotland. Secondly, our family enjoys the area around North Tipperary County in Ireland. Lastly, would have to be the Karlsruhe region of Germany.
This is not to say there other areas of Europe we love, these are simply favorite physical areas. Europe has provided the world with culture, intellect and diverse peoples.

What would you do to stop the current world financial crisis which stated from the US?
I think one of the first things the United States needs to do, from a local standpoint, is put itself on a firmer financial footing. This includes halting some of our reckless spending, and balancing our budget. Part of this “Balancing Act” needs to include paying off debt that has spiraled outward to other countries.

What’s your educational and economical program in case you get elected?
On the Education front, schools need to get back to the basics. For more than twenty-five years the American system of education has been systemically depriving the children of the United States of a quality education, in exchange for “sensitivity training”, video gaming and “global interests”. American students need to reestablish themselves with an education that focuses reading, writing, arithmetic and a real comprehension of our Constitution. As hard as it might sound, America’s education system needs to “reboot”. We need to stop teaching that texting qualifies as “reading and writing”, calculators and “No Child Left Behind” provides for an understanding of math, that Spongebob and Bart Simpson hardly teach any semblance of values, and that aspiring to be like Eminem, Lindsay Lohan, or the “Next American Idol” is not something our children should be reducing themselves to.
With regards to America’s economic issues, one of our biggest problems is the Federal Government’s insistence on intruding on the professional and personal finances, through progressively intrusive taxes and regulation. Americans need a reduction in the language of our tax structure, a return to the restriction of the United States Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 limitations on the Government’s ability to tax and a removal of inappropriate “revenue enhancements” such as the estate tax. These are America’s own “INTOLERABLE ACTS”, and need to be resolved immediately and permanently put out to pasture. We understand, as citizens, that lower taxes invigorate our economy while excessive tax and debt depress the economy – it’s a shame that the “brain trust” milling about in the Capitol Building are immune to common sense solutions to real problems.

What do you think of “Free Speech” and how much are you willing to fight to protect it?
In America, we take free speech for granted. We have Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Howard Stern as proof of that. I think that it is entirely within reason to say that “free speech” can be given realistic limits, such as restricting profanity during family television time. Outside of that, America has an inherent capacity for reducing the amount of “less than relevant” information in some avenues of media. One case in point is the bankruptcy of the Air America radio network, due to a lack of listenership and poor management, a pattern that is currently repeating itself with MSNBC – which is presently in the midst of a critical mass implosion, due to the “talents” of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

How would you help people who are having hard times finding jobs?
Putting Americans back to work requires three very important measures to be accomplished. First, the United States needs to take proactive measures in “American First “ hiring practices, as opposed to giving out visas to every country for American jobs. Second, we need to start enforcing our immigration policies, which will bring a number of jobs back to Americans. And lastly, we need to reform our tax policies and welfare programs to encourage employment instead of government subsidized living..

Is Arizona’s new anti-Illegal immigration law to your liking?
Unlike our “esteemed” Attorney General, I have actually read through Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Act is an extension of Title 8 of the United States Code, and not some form of illegal alien discrimination. The function of Arizona SB1070 is an enabling tool for State law enforcement to cooperate with the Federal Government in the enforcement of United States Federal codes, that the Federal Government is FAILING in their duties to perform.
Personally, while I agree with the legislation, I don’t think it is fair for the State of Arizona to have to resort to this measure. It should be realized that the United States Supreme Court, in the 1870’s, ruled that it is solely the Federal Government’s duty, and not the within the State’s jurisdiction, to establish Rules of Naturalization and Immigration. Also, in the early 2000’s, the same court ruled that the Federal Government CANNOT force the States to enforce Federal laws at the State’s expense. However, there is nothing in Federal Law that prevents a State from voluntarily deciding to enforce Federal Legislation that the US Government is negligent in enforcing itself.

What’s your opinion concerning the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?
While it’s easy to assign blame to British Petroleum over the Gulf spill, it’s completely off-base for the United States Government not to claim some of the blame itself. The US Government, through our regulatory agencies are responsible for the monitoring and compliance of off-shore oil facilities, and we have neglected our duties – partly in the case of political sidestepping (through back room dealings and monetary gifts), and through intentional means such as manipulation of the agencies involved. All of this falls directly on the Oval Office, as the President is the Direct Head of all Executive Branch agencies.
Realistically, the moment of the oil spill should have immediately invoked a temporary dismissal of the “Jones Act of 1921”. This would allow instant access to assistance from foreign firms, such as those from the Netherlands who have experience in oil spill operations. Similarly, by refusing to dismiss the “Jones Act”, in favor of political favors to the American Labor Unions, has created more of an environmental catastrophe then should have been permitted.

Alright, thank you for this interview Mr. Greenspon it was a pleasure.

NOTE: EU Times does not necessarily agree with all the thoughts expressed in this interview.

O’Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals

EU Times — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:10:59 +0000

Bill O'Reilly

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is warning that if President Barack Obama ever bypasses Congress and uses his pardon power to make millions of illegal aliens citizens, he could face serious calls for his impeachment.

“If President Obama were to sign an executive order giving illegal aliens amnesty, his career would be over and an impeachment movement would explode,” O’Reilly said Friday night on his “Talking Points” segment during his top-rated Fox show.

At the same time, O’Reilly said he did not believe reports that the Obama administration would grant such a blanket amnesty.

Fox News, however, reported this week: “The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.”

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that at least 10.8 million illegal immigrants are living in the United States.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised pro-immigration and Hispanic groups that he would make an amnesty program a top priority. But such a plan has taken a back seat in favor of other Obama legislative initiatives, including healthcare and financial regulation reform.

With congressional elections fast approaching, both the legislative calendar and the climate for new immigration legislation appears to offer immigration legislation a slim chance of passing this year.

Republicans, led by Arizona Sen. John McCain, have been angered that Obama has done little to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, and have made that a prerequisite condition before any discussion of immigration reform can take place.

Reports that the Obama administration is weighing ways to circumvent Congress have Republicans worried. On Monday, eight Republican senators sent the president a letter saying they are concerned that he will grant unilateral amnesty to America’s illegal immigrant population if his efforts to overhaul current U.S. policy fail in Congress.

The letter called on Obama to abandon any attempt to “unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”

The eight senators who signed the letter were Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa told Fox News that the White House has solicited opinions from experts on possible avenues for granting “amnesty for a large number of people.”

A former Bush administration official also told Fox News that talks on the subject have been held by Obama officials who are “studying legal ways to legalize people without having to go through any congressional debate about it.”

Republicans believe that Obama is anxious to grant citizenship to millions of illegals so he can add millions of new Democratic voters to the electoral rolls, ensuring his re-election in 2012 and tipping the national balance of power in favor of Democratic candidates for the foreseeable future.

O’Reilly also criticized the Obama administration for its lax treatment of the illegal alien issue, noting that Obama had appointed Harold Hurrt to be the liaison between the federal government and states over the increasingly contentious issue of illegal immigration.

Hurrt is the former police chief of Houston and Phoenix, and O’Reilly says he is “outwardly sympathetic to illegal aliens. As [police] chief, he refused to enforce federal immigration law. Now Hurrt is a federal immigration official? Come on, that’s insane.”

Hurrt’s appointment “proves that the president is extremely left on the immigration issue,” O’Reilly said.

Source

18 US States now filing versions of Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB 1070

EU Times — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:02:09 +0000

Almost half of America is trying to get you rid of this

One of America’s national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 18 states are now filing versions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America’s existing immigration laws.

Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

Activists have been working for almost four weeks now to encourage state lawmakers across the nation to file versions of SB 1070, to help alleviate boycotts and other political antagonism towards Arizona. Citizen activist are being asked to call, e-mail, visit, and fax their state lawmakers to encourage them to support existing SB 1070 type bills or to file them as soon as possible.

We have documented the following 18 states are following Arizona’s lead in response to citizen pressure.

Here’s the list of all US states seeking to adopt Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.

1 – Arkansas – Source
2 – California – Source
3 – Idaho – Source
4 – Indiana – Source
5 – Maryland – Source
6 – Michigan – Source
7 – Minnesota – Source
8 – Missouri – Source
9 – Nebraska – Source
10 – Nevada – Source
11 – New Jersey – Source
12 – Ohio – Source
13 – Oklahoma – Source
14 – Pennsylvania – Source
15 – Rhode Island – Source
16 – South Carolina – Source
17 – Texas – Source
18 – Utah – Source

Riot police shield Obama from tea-party Grandmas

EU Times — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:09:57 +0000

Patriotic tea partiers in Quincy, Ill

When hundreds of tea-party protesters – including many elderly women – gathered outside a civic center where President Obama was giving a public speech Wednesday, they were surprised to be greeted by police dispatched in full riot gear.

Obama spoke in Quincy, Ill., at the Oakley Lindsay Civic Center. The event was open to the public, and about 2,000 tickets were distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

About 200 protesters peacefully rallied outside the civic center, carrying signs that read “Give Us Liberty Not Debt” and yellow “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, the Quincy Herald-Whig reported. Protesters waved U.S. flags and shouted “Remember in November” and “You work for us.”

‘Look at these extremist maniacs!’

After Obama’s motorcade arrived, a Secret Service agent instructed protesters to move across the street. The crowd began singing “God Bless, America” and the National Anthem. Quincy Deputy Police Chief Ron Dreyer ordered police in full riot gear to march up the street and stand between the tea partiers and the civic center.

Snipers were also spotted on the rooftop of the building.

Rooftop snipers

Tea-party grannies are just some of America’s true patriots! Find out who the rest are in this beautiful collection of tea-party images.

The tea partiers complied when they were told to move across the street, behind a sidewalk and into a parking lot. The riot police did not come into contact with the crowd, and the tea partiers sang patriotic songs while obeying the orders.

“Thanks for protecting our president,” one tea partier can be heard saying on a video of the event. “He’s the anointed One, the Messiah.”

Another man said, “Illegals are rioting, and we’re as peaceful as you can believe.”

NBC affiliate WGEM described the crowd as “rowdy,” though they could be heard singing “God Bless America” in the background during the report.

Inside, Obama told the crowd, “When I travel now, it kind of causes a ruckus.”

Michelle Malkin’s blog responded to the incident with the headline “Riot police called in to protect Obama from out-of-control tea party.”

“Thank goodness the riot police showed up quickly before something serious happened,” Doug Powers wrote. “Look at these extremist maniacs!”

Powers referenced photos of several elderly women at the protest who smiled and wore U.S. flags.

Tea partiers in Quincy

“No word yet on how many crimes were carried out in town while the police were being ordered to monitor this seething cauldron of tea-party rage,” he wrote, “but it was a small price to pay to keep the area secure.”

Organizer Steve McQueen told the Herald-Whig, “We’ve always been respectful and acted with dignity. We are out to make our case and make it peacefully.”

Tea partiers rally on opposite side of street

Tea-party blog P/Oed Patriot posted the following video of the incident:

The following videos of the event were also posted on YouTube:

The photos and videos sparked a wave of blogger reactions, including the following comments:

* I hope the riot police have full auto assault weapons with armor-piercing rounds. I hear false teeth can deflect normal NATO rounds.

* Those poor police have to be embarrassed.

* These guys and gals look like my mom or the people in my church. Wake up America!

* Why can’t these racist, violent tea parties be civil like the peaceful pro-illegal immigration rallies we saw in Phoenix!?

* The cops really have to worry since protesters are shown on tape throwing bottles at them. Oh wait …

* SWAT was there because it looked like the ladies were going to break out in a bingo game. Those daubers have ink, ya know.

* Oh my G-d. How beyond ridiculous. This country’s “leaders” have gone stark raving insane.

* Yeah, they look like real hoodlums. Next they’ll be going after the elementary school kids singing those crazy patriotic songs!

* When will the AARP condemn this threatening behavior by team Obama?

Army prepping for tea-party ‘terrorists’?

Meanwhile, the Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander reports he was contacted by enlisted soldiers and officers of the military who are concerned about Army exercises at Fort Knox. According to the report, military intel advisories identify potential terrorist adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party.”

A purported exercise intel update issued April 23 read: “The Demonstration did not happen due to Federal and local law enforcement influence. Possible raid on the local White Supremacists Organization may have been made in the last 48 hours.”

The document for the exercise continues, “TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date. Mint Police are on a heightened alert status to deal with a large crowd on the grounds. Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.”

The threat risk is dubbed “substantial,” with “threats against the US Bullion Depository and Fort Knox.”

A similar intel update for another exercise was purportedly issued April 26.

It stated, “Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in Their lives. Alcohol use ‘fanned the flames.’ Many Military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc ‘shoot the Govt. Agent’ event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for thge best shot placement. Components for bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations.”

It continues, “Local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests.”

According to the update, the 16th Cavalry Regiment Quick Reaction Force I and the 194th Armored Brigade Quick Reaction Force II were placed on two-hour recall.

“Such exercises are critical to the readiness of our forces, and the standard for the real time intel reports in these drills requires thinly veiled references to assets of existing or collateral threat vectors such as communist regimes such as China and real terrorist networks such as al-Qaida, etc,” Alexander wrote. “Perhaps the writers of such exercises today should focus on response plans for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks a post (See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal Malik Hasan.).”

He added, “The Fort Knox exercise is not only amateurish in its construct, but also sets an ominous political precedent.”

Alexander said he was recently contacted by the senior command staff at Fort Knox who said an officer in the security loop altered the scenario “in order to make it more realistic.” He was told the alterations were not approved at the command level and that the person who circulated the scenario through official channels will “receive appropriate counsel.”

Romanian Hackers: “Gypsies Aren’t Romanians, Morons”

EU Times — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:42:56 +0000

Gypsies from Romania

The website of the Daily Telegraph has been hit by hackers who defaced it with a screenshot from ‘Romanian National Security’.

Chris Boyd, malware researcher at Sunbelt Software, said that vulnerabilities were found on the site back in March involving database access, and this has led to a ‘hacking group’ going in and defacing two subdomains.

These were the shortbreaks and wine and dine subdomains of the site, and both appeared to have been compromised by ‘R.N.S. – Romanian National Security’, featuring a Romanian flag and text.

Boyd said: “Both pages play some music – ‘The Lonely Shepard’, from a .ru domain (you’ll also notice a rather bizarre link to a Top Gear: Romania clip hosted on YouTube).”

The Romanian YouTube clip featured excerpts from an episode that showed the country in an unflattering light, and made several references to Romanians as gypsies.

Boyd said that he put the text into Google Translate and although it was not perfect, the gist of it reads: ‘We tried to see how some ‘garbage’ as you try to mock his country. Let us create a completely different picture from the real one, and calling us ‘Romanian Gypsies’ disseminating gender issues still.

“If you had the nerve to angry an entire country, know that we will not stop here! Romania Guess What, Gypsies aren’t Romanians, morons.” Boyd said the Telegraph had been notified.

Tony Osborn, security expert at Symantec, said: “Having your website defaced is akin to business grinding to a halt. Websites are the lifeline for most businesses and having unwelcome visitors removing/re-writing content without permission hinders the business and affects its reputation.

“The Daily Telegraph isn’t the first website to have been defaced (nor will it be the last), we’ve seen many high profile sites affected with this problem. Also, it is worth noting that not all of the site was affected by the alleged Romanian hackers. However, it does come down to the issue of ensuring web fronting systems are secure to mitigate against the risk of those with malicious intent trying to harm the business and its reputation.”

Source

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

EU Times — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:54:46 +0000

Arizona finally fighting aginst Illegal Immigration

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern

Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.

Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate’s position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.

The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.

Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.

While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.

In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.

That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.

The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.

The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.

When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.

Source

Tea Partiers are boiling mad in Illinois

EU Times — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:47:02 +0000

Nadine Sweeney shows her support during a Tea Party rally at the Daley Plaza on Thursday.

Sally Sinacore, a retired paralegal from Palatine, came to the Daley Plaza Tea Party rally wrapped in an American flag that had draped the coffin of her father, a World War II veteran.

“I’m here because I want us to become fiscally more conservative. We cannot take this heavy spending any longer,” the 73-year-old woman said. “This is my country, and I love it to death.”

At a recent Tea Party rally in Springfield, retired state worker Ed White held a homemade sign with this handwritten message:

“Constitution strictly. Remove all pinkos, Marxists. Down with progressive liberals who raise taxes, drain the treasury and steal our freedoms.”

“The truth of it is,” the former, 69-year-old state worker and ex-Republican said, “I’m fed up.”

These two faces represent the fledgling Tea Party movement in Illinois. It is driven by disdain for deficit-riddled government, a love for Fox Television personality Glenn Beck and a hatred of if not the man, at least the policies of — President Obama, who ascended to the White House use last year with 3.3 million Illinois votes.

The Tea Partiers have drawn significant positive attention in a media that many believe is against them. About 2,000 crowded Daley Plaza on Thursday to commemorate — or curse — the day when Americans’ federal tax bills were due. Smaller rallies occurred in Naperville, Joliet and a handful of other Chicago area towns.
‘People I’d hire’

The Tea Party movement has drawn comparisons to H. Ross Perot’s Reform Party movement, which netted Perot more than 840,000 Illinois votes in the 1992 presidential election and was driven by disillusionment with the organized political parties.

However, the Tea Party in Illinois is not an organized or an established political force and certainly not yet on par with Perot’s anti-establishment movement. It is a loose confederation of ad hoc groups with no clear figureheads nor significant political victories yet, beyond its ability to rally its faithful.

“I’ve been particularly impressed with people at Tea Parties. I describe them as people I’d hire for my company. They’re entrepreneurs. They’re people who go to church. They’re people who have families and are engaged in their communities. They’re people I’d have baby-sit my children. And they’re people who believe in the founding principles of the country,” said former GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski.

With Tea Party help, Andrzejewski finished fourth in the GOP’s six-way primary with 111,030 votes. He’s spoken at recent rallies.

Andrzejewski estimated the movement has at least 50,000 members in Illinois, though there is no way to validate that figure.

His Illinois-centric demographic profile of the Tea Party movement bears striking similarities to Tea Partiers across the country in a poll published last week by the New York Times and CBS News. The national survey of 1,510 Tea Party supporters found:

• 88 percent disapproved of Obama’s job performance.

• A plurality regarded former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the most admired political figure in the country, followed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

• 52 percent believe “too much has been made” about problems facing black America.

• 51 percent doubt global warming will have a serious impact.

• 63 percent get their news from Fox News Channel, and 59 percent hold a favorable opinion of Fox personality Glenn Beck.
‘Yes, they are mostly white’

The majority of respondents also identified themselves as white, men, mostly middle- or upper-middle class with family incomes of $50,000 or more, the poll found. They were mostly Protestants and regular churchgoers, 45 or older, and “angry” about how things are going in Washington.

“The media have tried to portray the Tea Party as racists and extremists, but you can see we have all sorts of people here — young, old. Yes, they are mostly white, but you can see some African Americans,” said Deirdre Sandquist, a retired Cook County probation officer, who attended Thursday’s downtown rally.

Her sign read: “Keep the government out of our banks, our businesses and our bedrooms.”

Like some others who are part of this drive to turn government upside down, Sandquist survives on a government pension — a fact that could be viewed as ironic given the venom some in the group spew toward the state and federal governments. Sandquist noted her 3 percent cost of living adjustment in her county retirement check “is usually eaten up by increased health care costs.”

Despite an epic tax battle that has unfolded this spring in Springfield, the Tea Party has been largely absent from that fight. Andrzejewski has pushed for a “forensic audit” to root out wasteful spending in lieu of the tax increase Gov. Quinn favors, but there has been no Tea Party rallying in the rotunda of the Capitol.

Quinn, who likes pointing out he was born on the 175th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and once encouraged Illinoisans to mail tea bags to former Gov. James Thompson to protest a 1979 legislative pay increase, called Thursday’s Tea Party rally in Chicago “a good thing.”

Source

Ron Paul: Why didn’t the North just buy the South’s slaves & free them that way?

EU Times — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:06:55 +0000

Ron Paul

While I was covering CPAC for PJTV, I set up an on camera interview with Ron Paul. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, we weren’t able to actually do the interview.

So, when I got back, I pursued an interview with Ron Paul for Right Wing News. I wasn’t sure the interview would happen because not only do I have some differences of opinion with Ron Paul, I was very hard on him during the 2008 elections.

Still, despite whatever differences we may have, I sincerely appreciate the fact that he was willing to talk with me and was also willing, without the slightest complaint, to answer all the questions I had for him, some of which were pretty tough.

What follows is a slightly edited transcript of the conversation I had last Friday with Ron Paul.

First of all, let’s assume Obamacare isn’t repealed and we continue to run massive deficits as far as the eye can see, just as the Obama administration is predicting right now. What are the consequences of that in a decade or two?

If it lasts that long, it just means that there will be a lot of inflation. Interest rates have already started to go up and we have price inflation in medical care as well as all the other problems. With interest rates rising and inflation coming back, this will lower the standard of living of all Americans. Actually, the standard of living has been going down for over 10 years and real wages have gone down over these past 10 years. So a program like this on top of our problems just makes things much worse, just hastens the day that the dollar will lose a lot more value — maybe to the point where they will destroy the dollar completely.

Now, you’re a doctor — so you’re especially qualified to speak on the health care reform bill that just passed. If one of your constituents came up to you and asked what to expect from this bill over time if it remains in place, what would you tell him?

They’re going to get a lot worse care, there will be more between the doctor and the patient –already there’s way too much interference between the doctor and patient. We have the insurance company and the medical management companies already, but this will add to the government’s bureaucrats, it will indirectly have the drug companies involved, and the insurance companies will stay involved. It just will become more bureaucratic, doctors will become more frustrated, and there will be less doctors available because the ones who have been on the verge of quitting will probably quit. Eventually, the amount of care will have to be rationed because the cost will go up, the government will always see shortfalls, and because of the shortage of doctors, care will be rationed. It will make our patients a lot more unhappy.

OK, let me ask you a couple of tougher questions. You think it’s been proven that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or do you believe his real birthplace is still in doubt?

Oh, I don’t have a strong opinion about that. I would say that until they prove otherwise, that he was born in Hawaii.

One more question along those similar lines. During the campaign in 2008, there was a lot of talk about the North American Union. It sort of dropped off the radar after Bush left office. Post-Bush, what do you think about that?

I think it might be a very bad sign because there had been talk about the North American Union and currency for this hemisphere. But I think what has happened is that the United States internationally has become such a powerhouse with their empire that they more or less have taken over the United Nations. Instead of them being on the short end of votes, I think they have literally become the owners.

So therefore, I’m more concerned about a world currency rather than a hemispheric currency…. But the move away from sovereign nations is still ongoing. There’s still this effort to take advantage of this crisis and move toward an international agreement or a world government. So I see the fact that they talk less about regional government is probably… is not a good sign.

Now one idea that you’ve championed that’s gained a lot of support in both parties is auditing the Fed. Can you explain the idea to someone who says, “I don’t know why we need to do this?” What would you say to him about why we need to audit the Fed?

Well, fortunately, I don’t get many questions like that. Most of the time I get questions like, “Why in the world aren’t we auditing the Fed?” That, of course, is the better question because we should know. During the financial crisis, the Fed created $2 trillion, they passed the money out to their friends, and they refused to tell us, the Congress, and the American people where this money has gone. So this sort of set the stage for the American people to demand that we have an audit. I’ve been working on that for years, but there was no interest.

But, the crisis has gotten a lot of people interested in the subject and I think that’s the reason that all the Republicans in the House have supported this. Well over 100 of the Democrats support it, too; so I think we’re certainly moving in that direction — but it’s important to know, just for transparency’s sake, and who gets the benefits and which people, which companies are allowed to drop through the cracks.

Now one of the things that has most contributed to the perception that Congress is corrupt, is earmarking. We regularly see cases where campaign contributors receive earmarks or earmarks seem to be traded for votes. Now many Republicans support a ban on earmarks for that reason, but you don’t. Can you talk a little bit about why that is?

Yes, I see this in a constitutional manner and think that one of the problems that we have faced in the last 50 years has been the steady erosion of constitutional power, the giving up of the prerogatives to the executive branch, as well as to the judicial branch. I don’t want a strong executive branch. I don’t want presidents to be able to go to war without declarations. I don’t want presidents to write executive orders, signing statements, because that gives them way too much power. We’ve allowed the executive branch to write regulations, which have the force of law.

This is just another example of the Congress giving up their prerogatives because when you have a chance to vote against an earmark, you don’t save any money. You say that this money can’t be earmarked for somebody’s district to build a highway. Well, the money came out of the district, so why should we let the bureaucrats or the executive branch decide who gets the money? The President comes back and says, “Oh, ok, I can put it in the budget if you do A, B, C, & D for me.” So, it gives the executive branch that much more power. So, I see this in a very strict constitutional sense. I defend strongly the responsibility of the Congress to designate every penny they spend. Yet, I think all the spending is too much; so I vote against all the appropriations.

Besides, the definition of earmarks is different. When they talk about earmarks, they are these special things that might go to a person’s district. It’s less than one percent of the budget. But the way I look at earmarks — I think earmarking $1 billion to build an embassy in London — it makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t want that either; so that’s my reason for opposing the ban on earmarks. I want the Congress to designate where every penny should be spent.

Now there’s a debate among some Libertarians whether it’s better to support a third party or to come into the Republican Party and try to make changes from within. Where do you come down on that?

…I’d say work within, but that’s my personal decision. There was one time in my life when I was trying to do it outside the Republican Party, but….I get the question all the time and I just tell the people to do what you feel like, do what you want to do. Do what you’re most comfortable with and where you think you can do the most good. Some people don’t want to work within the Republican Party; so they should do whatever they’d like to do. There’s no one answer for everybody.

I do point out to people, though, that the election laws are controlled by the Republicans and Democrats; so that’s one thing they agree on. If you exclude any opposition outside the two party system philosophically, then that squeezes people because philosophically, there’s not a whole lot of difference when you look at history. Government keeps growing regardless of which party is in power. So I just think that with the way they pass laws, like the getting into debates, getting on ballots, and the way you’re treated by the media, it’s just very, very difficult to have any democratic competition in this country.

Now there was a debate question you were asked that I remember. It had to do with eliminating both the CIA and FBI. Those weren’t the only agencies the question mentioned, but it did mention those two. You seemed, as I remember, to be answering that if you had your way, yes, you would do that. Don’t both those agencies, despite their flaws, serve vital roles? Can you elaborate on your views there a little bit?

Yes. I think intelligence gathering is very, very important. Matter of fact, there was somebody on TV just recently, an ex-CIA agent who has just written a book on this subject. He thinks the CIA is totally inept and has never produced worthwhile information. Even when they’re given good information, like on the underwear bomber, they don’t know what to do with it. So on intelligence gathering, there’s a military and I think there are certain things that the FBI ought to do, but I don’t think the FBI should ever be spying on groups of people like they did in the anti-war movement in the ’60′s — like they do when they infiltrate the right to life groups or the pro-gun groups. Spying on the American people is not part of the American process; so that’s what I object to.

The CIA is involved in way too much. Not only do we fight undeclared wars, but it’s the CIA operating their computers who decide who gets bombed and who doesn’t get bombed in Pakistan and in Yemen. To me, it is just totally bewildering that we put up with this. There’s no real oversight for the CIA.

There have been so many CIA agents who have left the department and wrote about this. They get involved in foreign elections. They get involved in killing people. I just don’t think that the CIA has proved themselves to be worth very much. We could still deal with intelligence gathering without the intrigue of the CIA being involved in so much secret activity involvement in other countries as well as in our own country.

Now as I’m hearing it, it sounds like you’d maybe reform both agencies instead of getting rid of them. Is that basically what you mean?

Well, I’d probably lean more on the gathering of information with the military and the FBI. But I’d curtail their activities once they do this blanket spying on people. Of course, since we’ve had the Patriot Act, this gives them license to watch anything and everything all American citizens do, whether it’s their telephones, their faxes, their e-mail, or whatever.

Now what would you say to the argument that illegal aliens contribute to the tax base and do jobs that Americans won’t do? Plus, what about the idea that people should be able to go wherever they want across the border — so we should allow them to come into the United States and be citizens?

Well, I disagree with it. Citizenship should be restricted and it should be kept legal. It is true that illegal aliens will have some benefits and they will be productive to some degree. But if you add the pluses and the minuses, actually there’ve been some studies on this to show that it’s actually a negative — because if they know and anticipate that they will get citizenship, then they bring their families in. Their families use our emergency rooms and our schools. If you add it all up, it is a tax. It is a burden. What we need to deal with is how do we get back to a thriving, healthy free market economy? (If we were) more lenient on our immigration laws, they should not qualify for any freebies and they should certainly not be rewarded by citizenship.

Getting down to the last two questions here…. Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we’ve ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?

No, I don’t think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don’t see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.

The people who disagree want to turn around and say, “Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery.” But that’s just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.

Ok, and the last question. If somehow you were allowed to make three changes to the law or amendments to the Constitution, any three you wanted, what would they be.

I’ll qualify this with the statement that the Constitution is not all that bad. Our problem is people ignore it. I mean, you take the proper interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause — and we know what it means, but people want to read something else into it so the words have no meaning. The words only depend on the character of the people whom we elect. In the last 100 years, the character of those individuals has been very, very sloppy in watching out for our rights.

I guess, if you wanted to try a little harder to protect against that, you could write in some more prohibitions. They thought for sure if they just said this is what you’re allowed to do, you can’t do anything else, the people would be able to read into that. It looks to me like in this day and age, you almost have to write down and say what the government is not allowed to do.

So, writing some prohibitions that say you can’t develop the welfare state and you can’t go to — we already have it in there, you can’t go to war without a declaration, but I think I would write into the Constitution, the guarantee for nullification of laws. I imagine you could write the Second Amendment a little bit better to make that very, very explicit, but unfortunately, better language could be helpful — but the only thing that is going to improve things is better people being in charge.

Source