Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

I find it very interesting that Mexico wants a wide open U.S/Mexico border 
but rounds up all those that cross their souther border, puts them in camps 
and then returns them to their country of origin at gun point!

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "abitcrazy" <abitcrazy AT cox.net>


> Whoa!  one can't link
>
> corruption,
> socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada.
>
> After all, is there a rash of Canadians illegally coming to our country? 
> Nope.  why?  because they have a better government.  Mexico is corrupt, 
> and does not take care of its people.  Alas, America is getting more like 
> Mexico.  So, there is a rush all right, but it's to reduce US to 
> third-world economic status as a working people.  It is bad government 
> that creates an economic collapse of a middle class, and reduces the 
> society to haves and have-nots, with the haves being a tiny minority.
>
> I am totally against NAFTA and CAFTA and anything else that does not only 
> maintain our economic advantages for our workers, but attempts to raise 
> the level of economic  security to all nations, instead of acting in 
> corporate interests in their never-ending quest for cheaper and cheaper 
> labor.  After all, when labor ceases to make enough, who will buy all the 
> goods and services?  It is desirable to have a strong and growing middle 
> class, as they are the ones who sustain an economy.
>
> arlene
>
>
> > You mean such as the proposed North American Community?
> >
> > "  The Council on Foreign  Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of 
> > the
> > bag about what's really behind  our trade agreements and security
> > partnerships
> > with the other North American  countries. A 59-page CFR document spells 
> > out
> > a five-year plan for the  "establishment by 2010 of a North American
> > economic and security community" with  a common "outer security 
> > perimeter."
> > "Community" means integrating the United States with the  "Common 
> > perimeter"
> > means  wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada."
> >
> > Lynda
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "abitcrazy" <abitcrazy AT cox.net>
> > To: <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
> >
> >
> >
> > > I think it is typical of TNR (which is more right-slanted) to favor the
> > > court's decision as constitutional.  I am mightily fearful, these days,
> > > of all the violations and broad-sweeping interpretations that "eminent
> > > domain" is taking.  In Tempe, AZ they attempted to use the eminent
> > > domain to STEAL business property for - guess - a new Strip Mall for a
> > > large developer, saying that ECONOMIC GOOD would come out of it.  Now,
> > > eminent domain is supposed to be for the public good.  We keep these
> > > interpretations going, we will lose all our public lands, and then the
> > > beauty that exists, and the wildlife that are protected, will soon
> > > disappear to only those who can pay-for-play.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, everyone here is most concerned with the loss of the country
> > > that we were all born into.
> > >
> > > Read www.rawstory.com
> > > mediamatters.org
> > > truthout.org
> > >
> > > and yes, the ever-criticized ACLU.  Shouldn't every, single one of our
> > > elected so-called "representatives" (representing who, these days?) be
> > > concerned with civil liberties?  Is that not why the constitution was
> > > founded in the first place?  It was to protect CITIZENS from EXCESSIVE
> > > ABUSE by their government.  It was meant to CHECK government,  not
> > > empower and embolden it in an ever expanding manner as they have done
> > > under this administration.
> > >
> > > arlene
> > >
> > >
> > > > As most of you who will read this know, I'm more than a little queasy
> > > > about
> > > > the Supreme's ruling on eminent domain. Just to add a bit to the other
> > > > side
> > > > of the argument, I submit this article (printed in full because TNR now
> > > > has
> > > > most of its material available only to subscribers):
> > > >
> > > > Breyer Restraint
> > > > by the Editors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Supreme Court term that ended this week managed to infuriate both
> > > > liberals and conservatives. In particular, the Court's decisions
> > > > upholding
> > > > some displays of the Ten Commandments but not others and allowing New
> > > > London, Connecticut, to seize private homes in an effort to promote
> > > > economic
> > > > development were attacked by critics on both sides of the political
> > > > spectrum
> > > > for exalting pragmatism over constitutional principle. But, in fact, 
> > > > both
> > > > sets of decisions were defensible in constitutional as well as 
> > > > practical
> > > > terms. They represented an admirable recognition that the Court governs
> > > > best
> > > > when it governs least.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to sympathize with those who instinctively question the harsh
> > > > result in the property rights case, Kelo v. New London. A 5-4 majority
> > > > allowed the New London City Council to use eminent domain--a 
> > > > government's
> > > > right to seize property in its jurisdiction so long as it provides just
> > > > compensation--to take nine homes from their owners in order to develop
> > > > office buildings to complement a nearby pharmaceutical research 
> > > > facility
> > > > that the city believes will create jobs. Many citizens, understandably,
> > > > view
> > > > this outcome as unfair. Nevertheless, defenders of judicial restraint,
> > > > particularly liberals, should applaud the Court's refusal to 
> > > > second-guess
> > > > the economic judgments of city and state legislatures. Had the Court 
> > > > come
> > > > out the other way, as libertarian supporters of the so-called
> > > > Constitution
> > > > in Exile urged it to do, the decision would have unleashed a torrent of
> > > > judicial activism that might have called into question everything from
> > > > local
> > > > zoning ordinances to environmental laws.
> > > >
> > > > The appropriate response to the unfairness inherent in individual cases
> > > > involving eminent domain is political, not judicial. This week, Senator
> > > > John
> > > > Cornyn of Texas introduced the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, 
> > > > and
> > > > Private Property Act of 2005, which would prohibit any 
> > > > government--state,
> > > > local, or federal--that accepts federal funds for a development project
> > > > from
> > > > using eminent domain to promote economic growth. A bill like this might
> > > > help
> > > > to discourage eminent domain abuse--that is, condemnation of private
> > > > homes
> > > > for private profit--without asking judges to second-guess the economic
> > > > decisions of legislators, a task for which they are notoriously
> > > > ill-equipped.
> > > >
> > > > The Ten Commandments decisions were similarly farsighted. By a 5-4 
> > > > vote,
> > > > the
> > > > Court struck down displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky
> > > > courthouses, holding that the exhibits lacked a legitimate secular
> > > > purpose
> > > > since they had been installed to acknowledge the Bible as Kentucky's
> > > > "precedent legal code." By contrast, a different 5-4 majority upheld
> > > > Texas's
> > > > tacky display of a huge Ten Commandments tablet outside the state
> > > > capitol,
> > > > since it had been sponsored by Cecil B. DeMille to promote his movie 
> > > > The
> > > > Ten
> > > > Commandments. The swing justice who joined both majorities was Stephen
> > > > Breyer, who noted convincingly in his concurring opinion in the Texas
> > > > case
> > > > that religious displays can convey different messages in different
> > > > contexts.
> > > > Breyer also recognized that striking down all public displays of the 
> > > > Ten
> > > > Commandments, as some extreme secularists demanded, might "create the
> > > > very
> > > > kind of religiously based divisiveness" that the Constitution seeks to
> > > > avoid.
> > > >
> > > > The Court's moderate performance is all the more striking when 
> > > > contrasted
> > > > with the position of the most radical dissenting justice, Clarence
> > > > Thomas.
> > > > In the eminent domain and Ten Commandments cases, Thomas offered a 
> > > > highly
> > > > questionable interpretation of the Constitution and urged the Court to
> > > > overturn decades of its own precedents. If Thomas's view had prevailed,
> > > > the
> > > > states would no longer be required to respect constitutional 
> > > > prohibitions
> > > > on
> > > > the establishment of religion. And limits on judicial power over 
> > > > economic
> > > > regulations that have prevailed since the New Deal would be 
> > > > dramatically
> > > > altered.
> > > >
> > > > In the event that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist resigns, resisting 
> > > > a
> > > > justice in Thomas's image should be the central focus of Senate
> > > > Democrats. A
> > > > Gallup poll released this week suggests that a narrow majority of
> > > > Americans
> > > > believe that President Bush should choose a consensus candidate for the
> > > > Court if Democrats object to his first choice. Less than half, by
> > > > contrast,
> > > > believe that Bush should stand by his first choice if the nominee 
> > > > proves
> > > > to
> > > > be controversial. This suggests that the majority of Americans are
> > > > relatively happy with the broad direction of the Supreme Court, even 
> > > > when
> > > > they question the results in individual cases. The wise decisions this
> > > > week
> > > > were a reminder of why the pragmatic Court has earned the public's
> > > > confidence by generally deferring to the political branches. Now it's
> > > > time
> > > > for a more ideological Congress to rise to the occasion.
> > > >
> > > > the Editors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Homestead list and subscription:
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> > > > Change your homestead list member options:
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/abitcrazy%40cox.net
> > > > View the archives at:
> > > > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Homestead list and subscription:
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> > > Change your homestead list member options:
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
> > > View the archives at:
> > > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Homestead list and subscription:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> > Change your homestead list member options:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/abitcrazy%40cox.net
> > View the archives at:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead