Homestead mailing list

[abitcrazy <abitcrazy AT cox.net>]

sounds like you agree with what our current folks are doing - which is 
the same thing!  we got folks running around on our borders with guns, 
too!  Now why?  And Why don't we have to do that at the Canadian 
borders?  economics. 

I disagree with allowing illegal workers to enter indiscriminately.  
Fact is, I thought about leaving THIS country, and moving to something a 
little more progressive (say, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, 
Germany, Italy, etc.) but hey, THEY don't allow just anyone to move 
there.  They protect THEIR workers.  We don't because our government is 
not looking out for the best interests of American workers, but the 
interests of their corporate owners and masters.

arlene
really, now.  are you better off than pre-Reagonomics, destroy the New 
Deal efforts got underway?
> 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
> >
> >
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>