Immigration’s New Plantation Owners

Cross posted from The Peoples Patriot

James P. Pinkerton recently had an excellent piece published in Newsday titled An immigration bill for ‘plantation owners’. It’s an excellent read I encourage you to have a look. Here are some excerpts.

“Now, we have neo-plantation owners, inheritors of the “Gone With the Wind” class, seeking to set national policy. Perhaps, in their greed and shortsightedness, those who depend on non-free labor - slaves back then, illegals and “guest workers” today - are so blindly eager for short-term profit they are willing to saddle the rest of the country with long-term problems of multiculturalism and balkanization, made all the worse by welfare-state dependency. Exploitative employers brought the whirlwind to this country once, and now they want to do it again.”

So STRIVE and similar flawed, proposed legislation will create a new “class” in the United States. This new “class” will consist of people exploited for cheap labor that are not citizens and not illegal aliens. Meanwhile also exploiting America’s middle class who is forced to subsidize this class through taxation while being displaced by them in the workforce. At the very least, if not displaced, having the American worker’s wages severely depressed by this new “class”.

Ah but don’t kid yourself, this isn’t good enough for today’s new plantation owners. They have permanency in mind for this sub class. Their plan not only creates this serf like class but also transforms the American middle class into the said serf class.

“But, interestingly, STRIVE is also liked by those who figure it’s a fraud. Pro-multicultural immigration advocates know that all the bill’s complicated provisions can never be enforced, that its measures will be loopholed to shreds by bureaucrats and clever lawyers. And so, they hope, STRIVE will stumble into amnesty.”

Politicians are using the strategy that if they can’t hoodwink the American public into all out amnesty, they will pass unenforceable legislation instead. This gives them cover of appearing to deal with the issue without really doing so. When it’s proven that their flawed ideology in unenforceable they’ll throw up their arms and say “only amnesty will solve our nation’s problem”.

There are disturbing parallels between illegal immigration and the asinine legislation being formulated to deal with it and slavery of yesteryear.

“Yet, in an earlier era, some owners had come up with a “better” idea - they didn’t want free labor; they wanted slave labor. So, in the South, plantation owners brought in Africans “to do jobs that Americans wouldn’t do.” It was a good plan for the slaveocrats, if you didn’t mind a little blood and brutality.

And oh, by the way, slavery brought with it a civil war that nearly destroyed America in the 19th century, as well as leaving a tragically stubborn racial divide that lingers into the 21st century.”

Today’s political and business elite don’t care about the long term issues associated with illegal immigration and their proposed remedies for it. They only care about profits and creating fodder to dress up their next quarterly stock holders report. The politicians meanwhile only care about satisfying their business elite masters to assure their grip on the power to rule, transform and ultimately destroy the United States.

Pinkerton goes on to assess STRIVE as follows:

“Yet, if you were to read through its 700 pages, you’d see that it represents one group’s attempt to manipulate the system against another group - and also against the national interest. Do you think the working class in America has it too good? Do you want to make sure that you always have the option of replacing your current workers - the ones who do your meatpacking, or landscaping, or household toiling - with even hungrier workers? And do you not care about crime and social chaos, as long as they happen in someone else’s neighborhood? Or perhaps disuniting the whole United States, after you’re dead? Then STRIVE is for you.”

I couldn’t have said it better.

The open borders crowd will lament they must have cheap labor. It will destroy our economy if we don’t have it. Forcing business to pay Americans a fair wage may negatively impact some business sectors perhaps, but destroy the economy, never. Our economy has never depended on low skilled, barely educated labor for it’s viability. None the less the open borders clowns continue serving up this “kool aid” to American public.

The interest of a few business sectors and politicians greed for power must never undermine or jeopardize the Rule of Law or the United States as a nation. This is exactly what is happening today.

So to the pleas of today’s elite, our modern day plantation owners, I say the following.

Frankly Bush and company, I don’t give a damn.

---

***Here’s Today’s Roundup of CAII Posts***My Country-My View - Suit targets LAPD over ’sanctuary law’

Bear Creek Ledger - Glenn Beck next??

CommonSenseAmerica - H.R. 1592 - Could Hate Crimes Bill Tie Hands of Border Patrol?

Illegal Aliens Must Go - What If Illegal Aliens Suddenly Vanished?

---

This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

House OKs subpoenas for top Bush aides

Endless hearings and subpoenas is what I predicted...

From the AP:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for
President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.

"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

Obviously, the answer is a political spectacle.

The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

The panel also voted to compel the production of documents related to the firings from those officials and Gonzales, Fielding and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton. Fielding a day earlier refused to provide Congress internal White House communications on the subject.

The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers of Michigan chose to do so.

...snip

Authorizing the subopenas "does provide this body the leverage needed to negotiate from a position of strenghth," said Rep. William Delahunt (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

Republicans called the authorization premature, though some GOP members said they would consider voting to approve the subpoenas if Conyers promises to issue them only if he has evidence of wrongdoing.

Conyers agreed. "This (authority) will not be used in a way that will make you regret your vote."

Several Republicans said, "No" during the voice vote, but no roll call was taken.

For his part, Bush remained resolute.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday.

...snip

Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.

The President doesn't seem to understand that Congress has no respect for the Executive Branch. What they want is to be the Parliament and the President to be the figure head like England has with the Monarchy.

If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court — ultimately the Supreme Court — in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

"It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

They are political appointees and can be fired and replaced on a whim by the President. That is what Gonzalez should have said in the first place.

I have never liked Gonzales, I think he is dim witted and got where he is because of affirmative action. I hope he resigns and we are done with him.

Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

I hope that is all talk.

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

Karl Rove's job is to advice the President. He was doing his job and if he had listened, the Democrats would not have this ammunition. I mean they have already stated that firing ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys like Clinton did in 1993 is not unusual. It is the selective firing of these eight that has caused the issue.

Senator Clinton has said as much and considering they are all Clinton appointees I would take her advice and fire the lot of them now.

In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

They should never have approved of that in the first place and I am glad it is gone.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

Um, White House is two words not one.

Do you hear the arrogance from this cockroach?

I told you after the elections I was hoping the democrats would behave as they promised, but that just has not happened. They are behaving as predicted.

Oh and don't think they have given up on the idea of impeachment folks. They are just trying to figure out how to get Bush and Cheney impeached at the same time, making Nancy "shrieker of the house" Pelosi President. They do not want Cheney to become President! I think I would enjoy having Dick Cheney as President, I am tired of President Bush.

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8

You heard it from me first! I mentioned Clinton's firing of 93 on the 12th...

From Media Research Center:

The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign."

CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

This is just one more example of the lame stream media's liberal bias. President Bush rejected firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys and chose to only fire eight and for this the administration gets attacked, instead of applauded. I would not be so ticked off if the networks had reported and was appalled by Clinton's wholesale firings of all but ONE U.S. Attorney; Michael Chertoff.

Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

Nope, no political bias here...

President's Radio Address March 10, 2007

From The White House:

Audio
Transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today, Laura and I are in Latin America, where we are visiting five countries: Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico. These countries are part of a region that has made great strides toward freedom and prosperity in the past three decades. They have raised up new democracies. And they have undertaken fiscal policies that have brought stability to their economies.

Yet despite the progress we have seen, many citizens in our hemisphere remain trapped in poverty and shut off from the promise of this new century. Nearly one out of every four people in Latin America lives on less than $2 a day. Many children never finish grade school. Many mothers never see a doctor. The fact is that tens of millions of our brothers and sisters to the South have yet to see improvements in their daily lives. And this has led some to question the value of democracy.

Our Nation has a vital interest in helping the young democracies in our neighborhood succeed. When our neighbors prosper, they create more vibrant markets for our goods and services. When our neighbors have a hopeful future in their own countries, they can find work at home and are less likely to migrate to our country illegally. And when our neighbors feel the blessings of liberty in their daily lives, the appeal of radicalism declines, and our hemisphere becomes more secure.

The United States is doing its part to help our neighbors in Latin America build a better life for themselves and their families. We are helping these young democracies make their governments more fair, effective, and transparent. We are supporting their efforts to meet the basic needs of their citizens -- like education, health care, and housing. And we are increasing opportunity for all by relieving debt, opening up trade, and encouraging reforms that will build market economies, where people can start from nothing and rise as far as their talents and hard work can take them.

On Monday, I will meet a Guatemalan citizen who has experienced the power of open trade and free economies. His name is Mariano Can . Twenty years ago, he was an indigenous farmer whose land provided barely enough corn and beans to feed his family. No one in his family had ever been to college, and most of the people in his village never got past the sixth grade. And his own children's prospects for prosperity looked just as bleak.

Mariano was determined to do better for his family. So he organized an association of small farmers called Labradores Mayas. He persuaded his fellow farmers to switch their crops to vegetables they could sell overseas -- high-value crops like lettuce, carrots, and celery. Soon they were selling to big companies like Wal-Mart Central America. Today, the business he helped establish is thriving, and it supports more than a thousand jobs. It also has supported something else: a college education for Mariano's son.

Mariano is showing what the people of Latin America can accomplish when they are given a chance. We must help others like him gain the opportunity to build a better life for their families. The generosity of the American people is helping our neighbors in Latin America build free and vibrant economies. By doing so, we will increase living standards for all our citizens, strengthen democracy in our hemisphere, and advance the cause of peace.

Thank you for listening.